Jeff Hermann say use it or lose it is hogwash. We lost it, and as
America goes, so goes Canada. I'm sure the McKenzie brothers will be
thanking us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From ARRL website:

Canadian Amateurs to Lose 220-222 MHz
January 3, 2006 -- Barring an outpouring of "compelling arguments to
the contrary," Industry Canada will reallocate the 220-222 MHz portion
of 220-225 MHz from the Canadian amateur service to the mobile and
fixed services. Under the provisional reallocation, which will take
effect January 25, the amateur service will be allocated the 219-220
MHz subband on a secondary basis. Additionally, the amateur service may
be permitted use of 220-222 MHz "in exceptional circumstances on a
secondary basis to assist in disaster relief efforts."

ARRL Chief Executive Officer David Sumner, K1ZZ, commented: "The US and
Canada generally coordinate their mobile allocations because of the
long border we share. The fact that it has taken Canada 15 years to get
around to implementing a mobile allocation at 220-222 MHz is indicative
of the fact that the reallocation that took effect in the US in 1991
has never lived up to the claims of its proponents."

In fact, the document that includes the proposed reallocation, Canada
Gazette Notice DGTP-004-05, Proposals and Changes to the Spectrum in
Certain Bands Below 1.7 GHz, cites the earlier US reallocation as part
of its justification for the change. Radio Amateurs of Canada opposed
the reallocation. Comments are due to Industry Canada by January 26.

wrote:
Jeff Hermann say use it or lose it is hogwash.

Really?

How much is 220-222 used in Canada?

Will 222-225 be overcrowded because
of the loss of 220-222?

What justification can there be for hams having
5 MHz of prime VHF spectrum if those 5 MHz
aren't being fully utilized?

On 4 Jan 2006 16:57:42 -0800, wrote:


wrote:
Jeff Hermann say use it or lose it is hogwash.

Really?

How much is 220-222 used in Canada?

Will 222-225 be overcrowded because
of the loss of 220-222?

What justification can there be for hams having
5 MHz of prime VHF spectrum if those 5 MHz
aren't being fully utilized?

yes the answer to be expected of an Proode extra

everyone should be advised that The following person
has been advocating the abuse of elders making false charges of child rape, rape in general forges post and name

he may also be making flase reports of abusing other in order to attak and cow his foes
he also shows signs of being dangerously unstable

STEVEN J ROBESON
151 12TH AVE NW
WINCHESTER TN 37398
931-967-6282

well stevie you assked for it you got it
Mark Morgan


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Jeff Hermann say use it or lose it is hogwash.

Really?

How much is 220-222 used in Canada?

Will 222-225 be overcrowded because
of the loss of 220-222?

What justification can there be for hams having
5 MHz of prime VHF spectrum if those 5 MHz
aren't being fully utilized?

Hey clown, why did you cut this: "and as America goes, so goes Canada."

simple becuase he is only a little better than steve

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Jeff Hermann say use it or lose it is hogwash.

Really?

How much is 220-222 used in Canada?

Will 222-225 be overcrowded because
of the loss of 220-222?

What justification can there be for hams having
5 MHz of prime VHF spectrum if those 5 MHz
aren't being fully utilized?

Hey clown,

Brian,

I'm not a "clown".

What's with the name-calling? Are you desperate for
attention? Or do you think such behavior is somehow
justified because I disproved your claim?

I asked significant, relevant questions about the use
of 220-222 MHz by Canadian hams. Try answering
them - if you can.

In case you didn't know, 220-225 is not worldwide
exclusive amateur territory. If hams don't use it
enough, why shouldn't it be reassigned to
services that *will* use it?

why did you cut this: "and as America goes, so goes Canada."

Because it's not relevant. Also not really true in many cases.

We lost 220-222 about 15 years ago. Hardly proof of your claim.

Canada has universal health care - USA doesn't. Canada dropped
mandatory code testing some time back but worked out an
ingenious compromise. USA can't seem to find a consensus out
of 18 proposals.

Canada doesn't just follow everyhting the USA does.

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Jeff Hermann say use it or lose it is hogwash.

Really?

How much is 220-222 used in Canada?

Will 222-225 be overcrowded because
of the loss of 220-222?

What justification can there be for hams having
5 MHz of prime VHF spectrum if those 5 MHz
aren't being fully utilized?

Hey clown,

Brian,

I'm not a "clown".

not in brains opinion and not in my own

What's with the name-calling? Are you desperate for
attention? Or do you think such behavior is somehow
justified because I disproved your claim?

nah it is your blah sey attitude about it

you get into a lather at suggesting you neeed what you see as your BW
in HF but you blithely talk about giving away VHF as if it wee nothing

I asked significant, relevant questions about the use
of 220-222 MHz by Canadian hams. Try answering
them - if you can.

no you did not

In case you didn't know, 220-225 is not worldwide
exclusive amateur territory. If hams don't use it
enough, why shouldn't it be reassigned to
services that *will* use it?

more of your lectureing attitute try to hope from clown to asshole?
cut

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Jeff Hermann say use it or lose it is hogwash.

Really?

How much is 220-222 used in Canada?

Will 222-225 be overcrowded because
of the loss of 220-222?

What justification can there be for hams having
5 MHz of prime VHF spectrum if those 5 MHz
aren't being fully utilized?

Hey clown,

Brian,

I'm not a "clown".

Fair enough. Yet you behave as a clown.

What's with the name-calling?

What's with the clown-like behavior?

Are you desperate for attention?

Are you desperate for a small win on RRAP?

Or do you think such behavior is somehow
justified because I disproved your claim?

Now there's a grand claim. The only thing you did was to clip my
statement that "as America goes, so goes Canada." We lost it for them.
Their government merely realigned their spectrum to match ours.

I asked significant, relevant questions about the use
of 220-222 MHz by Canadian hams. Try answering
them - if you can.

"Significant and relevant" to whom?

In case you didn't know, 220-225 is not worldwide
exclusive amateur territory. If hams don't use it
enough, why shouldn't it be reassigned to
services that *will* use it?

Herman says "use it or lose it" is hogwash. Talk to him about it.

why did you cut this: "and as America goes, so goes Canada."

Because it's not relevant. Also not really true in many cases.

I think you're a closet Canadian.

We lost 220-222 about 15 years ago. Hardly proof of your claim.

Ahem. Look more closely at their new 220 band.

Compare and contrast it to the USA 220 plan.

Canada has universal health care - USA doesn't. Canada dropped
mandatory code testing some time back but worked out an
ingenious compromise. USA can't seem to find a consensus out
of 18 proposals.

Canada doesn't just follow everyhting the USA does.

Hmmm? You sure now a lot about Canada in general.

Now go back and look at Canada's new 220 ham band.

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Jeff Hermann say use it or lose it is hogwash.

Really?

How much is 220-222 used in Canada?

Will 222-225 be overcrowded because
of the loss of 220-222?

What justification can there be for hams having
5 MHz of prime VHF spectrum if those 5 MHz
aren't being fully utilized?

Hey clown, why did you cut this: "and as America goes, so goes Canada."

QUOTE:

Thanks to your fueding with every-damned-body, there very, very little
room for actual civil discussion. Thanks a lot.

Brian P Burke, N0IMD, from another thread

UNQUOTE

Just a reminder, Brain, when you feel compelled to start calling
people dimuntives when they didn't call you a similar diminutive.

Steve, K4YZ

PS: It's "feuding"

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Jeff Hermann say use it or lose it is hogwash.

Really?

How much is 220-222 used in Canada?

Will 222-225 be overcrowded because
of the loss of 220-222?

What justification can there be for hams having
5 MHz of prime VHF spectrum if those 5 MHz
aren't being fully utilized?

Hey clown, why did you cut this: "and as America goes, so goes Canada."

QUOTE:

Thanks to your fueding with every-damned-body, there very, very little
room for actual civil discussion. Thanks a lot.

Brian P Burke, N0IMD, from another thread

UNQUOTE

Just a reminder, Brain, when you feel compelled to start calling
people dimuntives when they didn't call you a similar diminutive.

Steve, K4YZ

PS: It's "feuding"

I've never called you "little." I have called you "Bozo" before, but I
was just being kind.

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Jeff Hermann say use it or lose it is hogwash.

Really?

How much is 220-222 used in Canada?

Will 222-225 be overcrowded because
of the loss of 220-222?

What justification can there be for hams having
5 MHz of prime VHF spectrum if those 5 MHz
aren't being fully utilized?

Hey clown,

Brian,

I'm not a "clown".

not in brains opinion and not in my own

He is performing tricks.

What's with the name-calling? Are you desperate for
attention? Or do you think such behavior is somehow
justified because I disproved your claim?

nah it is your blah sey attitude about it

you get into a lather at suggesting you neeed what you see as your BW
in HF but you blithely talk about giving away VHF as if it wee nothing

Apparently he doesn't value VHF.

He cuts my post, and in agreeing with me, he demands I answer questions
making it appear as if we have an argument. Hi!

Strange little clown tricks.

I asked significant, relevant questions about the use
of 220-222 MHz by Canadian hams. Try answering
them - if you can.

no you did not

The facts:

1. Use it or lose it.

2. We lost it a long time ago.

3. Canada catches up and mimics our 220 allocations exactly.

In case you didn't know, 220-225 is not worldwide
exclusive amateur territory. If hams don't use it
enough, why shouldn't it be reassigned to
services that *will* use it?

more of your lectureing attitute try to hope from clown to asshole?
cut

Since 220 is not a worldwide allocation, Canada had no reason to
exactly mimic our plan.

That Jim sure is a smart feller.